I am probably one of the few people on these boards that still remembers the 1980’s. I was just a little kid then. But still.
Anyways, if any of the rest of you recall, there was this argument going between the USSR and the USA. Accusations were being thrown back and forth about who would be the first to start a nuclear war. Most people in the US assumed it would be the USSR, I recall. Then a little girl in the US sent a letter to the USSR. And she was invited to the USSR, where she was assured they would never be the first to start a nuclear war. Also, President Reagan famously said, wherever he went, that a nuclear war was unwinnable, and simply must never be fought. So really neither side was to enthused about the possibility.
Anyways, that was then, and this is now. Now we deal with radical Islamic states acquiring nuclear weapons, who take a different view of the subject than the two superpowers did.
I know from what I recall, people seem to be talking about the matter more than they did in the 80’s. But my question is still relevant: How likely is a nuclear war, as compared to the 1980’s?
I think the old Mutually Assured Destruction concept of everybody firing off all their missiles at once is unlikely. A more likely scenario is that a rogue terrorist-type nuclear bomb (they’d probably have only one anyway) gets a massive conventional response.
However, if something happens like an India/Pakistan or Iran/Israel war happens, they might not limit themselves to a one-off response. Even then, though, it’s unlikely that the U.S., Russia, Great Britain, etc. would want themselves dragged into it.
I think that the likelihood of the detonation of a one-off nuclear warhead is much higher today than it was in, say, 1985. North Korea: need I say more?
But the likelihood of a large-scale exchange is less, and that much is a pretty good thing. Putin may play games in Ukraine, but he won’t roll armored columns into Latvia. China may play games with islands and shipping lanes, but they won’t march across the border into Vietnam.
Sure, there’s always the “oops I goofed” scenario, from the errant flock of geese to a psychotic renegade seizing a silo. The risk is not zero by any means. But we’re a damn sight safer than we were when Reagan famously said, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”
(“American government: we begin launching also. Is not joke.”)
FWIW, I think that fear of nuclear war was a lot bigger in pop culture of the eighties (and seventies and sixties) than it is now. Nowadays we’re all worried about teenage dystopias and the zombie apocalypse.
I was a kid in the 80s, I remember being afraid of ICBMs and whatnot. You’d get the idea in school, or from movies like The Day After- nuclear holocaust aftermath drama. I remember the Star Wars response to it, thought it was crazy and a waste at the time, but hey, now we have railguns and lasers, so what did I know?
I think the chance of a one-off or a one-two is maybe a little scary. Plenty of people (at least in my imagination so that should be a red flag right there[sup]*[/sup]) would like to set off a nuke, and maniacs seem to have ever-stronger networks and suicide armies and such. Maybe a major terrorist group will succeed in procuring a nuke.
I don’t think Pakistan, India, Israel, France, Britain, Russia, US, or any other nuclear power I may be forgetting will launch a nuke under nearly any circumstances. North Korea? I think they just like to threaten, but, miserable population aside, that is a pretty creepy state.
The question asks about a nuclear holocaust. If a one-off happens in a populated area, it would be a local holocaust for sure, and might signal the start of a new historical era, but I think the days of (direct) wars between the great powers are behind us.
[sup]*[/sup] How many people/groups do we know for sure definitely want to nuke somebody?
No, you were (and are) right: it was crazy and a waste at the time.
However, with changes in technology and changes in the political world…it’s still crazy and a waste.
Railguns and lasers are nice, but the overall computational problem – identifying launch vehicles and targeting them all in the vital few seconds of launching – is still beyond anyone’s capability today.
(Terminal phase targeting is even worse: MIRVing and dummy warheads make the computational challenge many times more complex.)
So, apart from terrorists getting their hands on one, the only ones likely to use nukes are the Yanks.
They are a violent, arrogant, greedy and irrational lot. You often hear them clamor how one country or other should be turned into a glass parking lot, don’t you?
They are also prone to start wars.
I’d imagine that the first people to detonate a nuclear bomb in anger will probably discover that the point of nuclear weapons is that if they’re used, they’ve failed. Even without a nuclear response, the likely outcome is going to be a greater disaster for the detonating party than for the respondent.
The weapons and their launchers still exist, they are still in many cases on alert in silos in the American Mid West and Siberia (also trucks). Missile Submarines still undertake regular deterrance patrols. Bomber aircraft are still capable of carrying bombs to their targets.
I 'd imagine they would be at least the second people to discover adverse effects.
What does “detonate (shoot) in anger” even mean? Isn’t it mostly done in cold blood or fear?
What was the disaster that befell the US after Hiroshima?
I remember the 80s as well. A nuclear holocaust (all-out missle launch to eradicate the others) seems much less likely now than at that time, mostly because of the change in geopolitics. The Cold War is over, we 9the US) are communicating much more freely with other world powers. At least that is the impression from popular media, I do not claim any knowledge of real diplomacy.
I am however, still surprised that one of our current rogue players hasn’t detonated a small nuke or a dirty bomb in a major population center yet.
The 1960s were when the fear was greatest. That was the time of Ban the Bomb marches in many developed countries. The Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament.
We did not avoid nuclear war because of MAD. If MAD had worked, we would have had nuclear war, and the fact that we didn’t depended on the fact that MAD does not work. Ultimately, the real reason why we never got into a two-sided nuclear war is that people, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, were and are fundamentally decent.
We do not even need to resort to hypotheticals. It is a known historical fact that the USSR did not retaliate when they saw us launching a confirmed nuclear attack on them. If MAD had worked, they would have.
Its not a question of decency. I doubt anyone in Iraq/Vietnam and C Asia/Caucases would agree that either side is “decent”. Its a simple question of a gain v risk. Every war in history has begun because perceieved benefit outweighed possible loss. With nukes, that can never literally happen, Since, everytime leaders do a discussion about a proposed war and the question “whats the worst that could happen” comes up, the answer is not “well we lose a few divisions and a slice of territory” its “it goes nuclear and we are all dead”.
I’d like to know more about this one. If it didn’t actually happen, how was it confirmed?
My two cents is that there will be nuclear detonations in our future but not enough to make it a holocaust. I can see some rogue terrorist group building a small nuclear device, loading it onto a cargo ship, and setting it off in NY harbor. Or Pakistan and India might lob a few back and forth. If I had to bet, I’d say maybe twice every 50 years or so. Full scale launches from superpowers? Not likely.